So Christians can reject parts of what Jesus said, and accept other (parts) ?
How odd and bizarre
It's not odd at all. Many of the statements attributed to Jesus in the NT were probably not said by him anyway. As a Christian I think it would be lazy of me just to accept it all literally and not make the effort to discriminate.
It's not odd at all. Many of the statements attributed to Jesus in the NT were probably not said by him anyway. As a Christian I think it would be lazy of me just to accept it all literally and not make the effort to discriminate.
Indeed. There are a lot of comments made by people from the time of Jesus and who followed him and then his teachings after his death that have actually be disallowed by the Church and labelled heretical. Yet if you read them, they are no less credible than the things written by the most visible Apostles, like Matthew, Luke, Mark etc. The trouble is that they often paint a different picture of the man Jesus was, a picture that the original Church fathers did not want to show.
It's not odd at all. Many of the statements attributed to Jesus in the NT were probably not said by him anyway. As a Christian I think it would be lazy of me just to accept it all literally and not make the effort to discriminate.
So how do you know which statements are true and which aren't ? - not much faith if you can't distinguish what was said (and what wasn't).
No wonder the Church is losing all influence as the years have gone by.
No-one can make heads or tails of said religion; seems like too much hypocrisy involved :cool:
Indeed. There are a lot of comments made by people from the time of Jesus and who followed him and then his teachings after his death that have actually be disallowed by the Church and labelled heretical. Yet if you read them, they are no less credible than the things written by the most visible Apostles, like Matthew, Luke, Mark etc. The trouble is that they often paint a different picture of the man Jesus was, a picture that the original Church fathers did not want to show.
Yes indeed. I personally usually make a sharp distinction between Jesus - who I suspect was an Essene - and Christ - the revelation of Jesus' life to Paul.
I suspect much of the Gospels was written for non-Jews by Pauline followers. But based on the beliefs and teachings of the early Jesus following in Jerusalem, led by James.
I suspect Jesus' own spirituality was closer to modern Islam than modern Christianity. But I'm a bit heretical too I guess.
I sense the inhumanity which manifests within (and outside) our species, is independent of theism (or not). Though these latter are often a convenient peg on which to hang such tendencies...
So how do you know which statements are true and which aren't ? - not much faith if you can't distinguish what was said (and what wasn't).
No wonder the Church is losing all influence as the years have gone by.
No-one can make heads or tails of said religion; seems like too much hypocrisy involved :cool:
It's not as simple as what's true and what's not true. It's more like: what is likely to have been actually said by Jesus?; what is likely to be statements in the context of Paul's revelation about Christ?; what is just regurgitated social morality from the time the books were written?
I think you are right in implying that if the Church weds itself exclusively to a text that becomes older and older then it will gradually have less and less relevance to modern people. But there's still some timeless truths in there.
So how do you know which statements are true and which aren't ? - not much faith if you can't distinguish what was said (and what wasn't).
No wonder the Church is losing all influence as the years have gone by.
No-one can make heads or tails of said religion; seems like too much hypocrisy involved :cool:
They wrote the book. They know which bits are meant to be poetry or history or law or palace records. A lot of those distinctions are obvious to anyone with a bit of insight. :cool:
It's not as simple as what's true and what's not true. It's more like: what is likely to have been actually said by Jesus?; what is likely to be statements in the context of Paul's revelation about Christ?; what is just regurgitated social morality from the time the books were written?
I think you are right in implying that if the Church weds itself exclusively to a text that becomes older and older then it will gradually have less and less relevance to modern people. But there's still some timeless truths in there.
There are indeed. I am an atheist myself so attach no outside greater power to those words but that does not make them any less interesting to me. Some of the bible is very beautiful and comfort or strength can be gained from it even if you just consider it is a collection created solely by humanity.
If you bother to check the Evil Bible website you will find that the New is just as evil as the Old. To save you the effort I will provide a link... http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm
So, you didn't do the research personally? You lifted it from a website that mirrors your preconceptions?
I was raised a Catholic and, as I've grown older, questioned and questioned to the point where I no longer practice by going to Mass, etc. However, I haven't ruled out the possibility that there is something out there that is much bigger and better than me. It needn't be an old man with a long beard and sandals. I think Gandalf and Dumbledore have that covered.
I accept that some people don't share the same beliefs as me and have no problem with that. What I do get offended by is non-religious people calling people who do believe in a higher being or entity 'stupid' and 'ignorant' (not specifically referring to you, Dave5158). Some very clever and intellectually accomplished people have religious faith. On DS religious debates, I see quite a bit less name calling from those who defend religious belief than those who reject it. Science and logic can be used to justify an anti-religious stance but even these can be flawed and have 'missing pieces'.
The Bible should not be interpreted verbatim and it's true that the New Testament provided a challenge to the Old Testament. It reflected a change in the current knowledge and understandings of the day and represented an evolution of the Bible. On that premise, we might assume that a current Bible might also have adapted to reflect the beliefs and knowledge of today. God didn't write the Bible. It was written by those who had the ability to scroll down common understandings of the time, and each scribe will have put their own 'spin' on events. Much like is done today. Doesn't mean that there is nothing behind the spin.
Sorry Rowan love, but I suspect any random Tweet of the Dalai Lama contains about 100000000% more humanity, and relevance to the 21stC than the most cherry picked of PC bits from this rather violent, unpleasant and arcane ragbag of texts.
I got depressed in 2010 by the number of times the mere mention of Christianity set so many spiteful posts in motion.
In 2011 I've decided to be encouraged. If Christianity had no power, people would not bother posting so much unpleasantness and spleen. It seems that many of those who do all this venting are deeply afraid of the power of Christ ~ a clear indication to me me of just how profound that power is, if it can disturb them so much.
Comments
It's not odd at all. Many of the statements attributed to Jesus in the NT were probably not said by him anyway. As a Christian I think it would be lazy of me just to accept it all literally and not make the effort to discriminate.
Indeed. There are a lot of comments made by people from the time of Jesus and who followed him and then his teachings after his death that have actually be disallowed by the Church and labelled heretical. Yet if you read them, they are no less credible than the things written by the most visible Apostles, like Matthew, Luke, Mark etc. The trouble is that they often paint a different picture of the man Jesus was, a picture that the original Church fathers did not want to show.
So how do you know which statements are true and which aren't ? - not much faith if you can't distinguish what was said (and what wasn't).
No wonder the Church is losing all influence as the years have gone by.
No-one can make heads or tails of said religion; seems like too much hypocrisy involved :cool:
Yes indeed. I personally usually make a sharp distinction between Jesus - who I suspect was an Essene - and Christ - the revelation of Jesus' life to Paul.
I suspect much of the Gospels was written for non-Jews by Pauline followers. But based on the beliefs and teachings of the early Jesus following in Jerusalem, led by James.
I suspect Jesus' own spirituality was closer to modern Islam than modern Christianity. But I'm a bit heretical too I guess.
It's not as simple as what's true and what's not true. It's more like: what is likely to have been actually said by Jesus?; what is likely to be statements in the context of Paul's revelation about Christ?; what is just regurgitated social morality from the time the books were written?
I think you are right in implying that if the Church weds itself exclusively to a text that becomes older and older then it will gradually have less and less relevance to modern people. But there's still some timeless truths in there.
They wrote the book. They know which bits are meant to be poetry or history or law or palace records. A lot of those distinctions are obvious to anyone with a bit of insight. :cool:
There are indeed. I am an atheist myself so attach no outside greater power to those words but that does not make them any less interesting to me. Some of the bible is very beautiful and comfort or strength can be gained from it even if you just consider it is a collection created solely by humanity.
So, you didn't do the research personally? You lifted it from a website that mirrors your preconceptions?
I was raised a Catholic and, as I've grown older, questioned and questioned to the point where I no longer practice by going to Mass, etc. However, I haven't ruled out the possibility that there is something out there that is much bigger and better than me. It needn't be an old man with a long beard and sandals. I think Gandalf and Dumbledore have that covered.
I accept that some people don't share the same beliefs as me and have no problem with that. What I do get offended by is non-religious people calling people who do believe in a higher being or entity 'stupid' and 'ignorant' (not specifically referring to you, Dave5158). Some very clever and intellectually accomplished people have religious faith. On DS religious debates, I see quite a bit less name calling from those who defend religious belief than those who reject it. Science and logic can be used to justify an anti-religious stance but even these can be flawed and have 'missing pieces'.
The Bible should not be interpreted verbatim and it's true that the New Testament provided a challenge to the Old Testament. It reflected a change in the current knowledge and understandings of the day and represented an evolution of the Bible. On that premise, we might assume that a current Bible might also have adapted to reflect the beliefs and knowledge of today. God didn't write the Bible. It was written by those who had the ability to scroll down common understandings of the time, and each scribe will have put their own 'spin' on events. Much like is done today. Doesn't mean that there is nothing behind the spin.
In 2011 I've decided to be encouraged. If Christianity had no power, people would not bother posting so much unpleasantness and spleen. It seems that many of those who do all this venting are deeply afraid of the power of Christ ~ a clear indication to me me of just how profound that power is, if it can disturb them so much.